Forums

Missed PIT bid? Really? Topic

Posted by jacqui214 on 5/15/2013 11:15:00 AM (view original):I have spoken out about this in other forum posts before. I believe there should be a 16 win requirement to enter the PT. I too did research on this and why would Minnesota (12-15; 113 RPI), VA Tech (13-14; 102), and Purdue (11-16; 96) get the nod over Loyalo (MD) (21-9; 74), Hofstra (22-6; 81), SE Mizzou St (20-9; 84), Tenn Tech (21-7; 89), S. Florida (21-8; 91), Northwestern St (20-9; 93), or Duquesne (20-7; 103)? This gives more money to the Big-6 conferences that could be used to increase the competition from mid-majors (who SHOULD have gotten the places). It would also give less incentive for the Big-6 to schedule 10 creampuffs in non-con, which is legal and games the system, knowing that playing amoung themselves will lower their RPI even if they lose all conference games...no one games the system better than the ACC. It is literally ruining Division I in Allen. I feel like I have been the lone ranger here, but if enough people rant about this, maybe Seble will do something. This further eliminates competition that the new recruit generation has shown to be to the benefit of the Big-6.

This, to me, clearly shows that Virginia Tech, Purdue and Minnesota should not have been invited. It also shows me that Northwestern State, SE Mizzou, and Loyola should be playing (and perhaps others).

Posted by professor17 on 5/14/2013 8:11:00 PM (view original):Going back to real-life, if you win your regular season conference title, but fail to make the NCAA, you get an auto-bid to the NIT. I think the same thing should be considered in HD. You'd just have to have some mechanism in place for determining which of the two division champs is considered the regular season champion, for purposes of handing out the PT auto-bid.

The same procedure they use to determine the number one ct seed. Te numb one ct seed is the regular season conference winner.

1) Love professor's idea. I only have Phelan to look at, but it would have only affected 2 teams going from out, to into the PIT. May very well be more on average, but it's a good idea.

2) I'm not in love with either idea of putting a wins limit or .500 record requirement for PIT, when it means more 21-9 teams that beat a bunch of nobodies gets the slot. 0-2 vs the top 50 and 2-7 vs the top 100 don't exactly scream "postseason team" to me.

it might not scream "postseason team", alas I don't think my Loyola team could necessarily win a game in the PIT, but i think 21-9 with a 74 RPI at least says "deserves a chance" or "deserves the prestige bump"

1) Love professor's idea. I only have Phelan to look at, but it would have only affected 2 teams going from out, to into the PIT. May very well be more on average, but it's a good idea.

2) I'm not in love with either idea of putting a wins limit or .500 record requirement for PIT, when it means more 21-9 teams that beat a bunch of nobodies gets the slot. 0-2 vs the top 50 and 2-7 vs the top 100 don't exactly scream "postseason team" to me.

it might not scream "postseason team", alas I don't think my Loyola team could necessarily win a game in the PIT, but i think 21-9 with a 74 RPI at least says "deserves a chance" or "deserves the prestige bump"

It seems like most of the teams that are getting into the PIT with terrible records are "Big 6" teams. Combine this with the several complaints of the Big 6 teams having a huge money recruiting advantage and it seems like a .500 requirement helps solve both of these a little bit. Take a little money from the Big 6 (not tons) and giving it to smaller conferences. Am I over simplifing this?

Posted by joeykw18 on 5/16/2013 12:46:00 PM (view original):Maybe a .500 requirement is only for D1?

It seems like most of the teams that are getting into the PIT with terrible records are "Big 6" teams. Combine this with the several complaints of the Big 6 teams having a huge money recruiting advantage and it seems like a .500 requirement helps solve both of these a little bit. Take a little money from the Big 6 (not tons) and giving it to smaller conferences. Am I over simplifing this?

My reasoning exactly. Either way, you've got a system that can/will be gamed. But at least with the win% requirement, you're not adding to the entrenchment of power conferences, to the detriment of everyone else at the division.

In other words, allowing people to game the system in ways that DON'T widen the gap between the Big 6 and the mid-major/smalls is better than those ways that DO. At least in DI.

I think we can all agree that the toughest jobs to get wins at are Low-Big 6 schools, so I can understand people not wanting those jobs to get tougher, HOWEVER handing those teams PIT bids keeps mediocre coaches in those spots FOREVER it seems, and those teams never actually move up WITHIN their own conferences.

FWIW, this seems like a bit of a big anomaly too...88th and didn't make the PIT...a lot of upsets in the CTs presumably.

I support non .500s making the PIT because that's how it's run in real life. I think it would be silly to essentially penalize a user for coaching/wanting to coach in a big conference, because if you're currently a Big-6 also-ran, you're going to get screwed by some schmuck like me who's going to schedule weak just to get some Ws. I think this would be another rash decision that isn't needed in HD...again what is needed, is a better ranking system. Yes the Projection Report is better than whatever convoluted, closeted system there was before, but there's still room for improvement within the format, and this very situation proves it. Transparency doesn't absolve the minor ills of the system. I used to support the Projection Report, but as a result of this situation, I question its validity.

Posted by colonels19 on 5/16/2013 8:34:00 PM (view original):FWIW, this seems like a bit of a big anomaly too...88th and didn't make the PIT...a lot of upsets in the CTs presumably.

I support non .500s making the PIT because that's how it's run in real life. I think it would be silly to essentially penalize a user for coaching/wanting to coach in a big conference, because if you're currently a Big-6 also-ran, you're going to get screwed by some schmuck like me who's going to schedule weak just to get some Ws. I think this would be another rash decision that isn't needed in HD...again what is needed, is a better ranking system. Yes the Projection Report is better than whatever convoluted, closeted system there was before, but there's still room for improvement within the format, and this very situation proves it. Transparency doesn't absolve the minor ills of the system. I used to support the Projection Report, but as a result of this situation, I question its validity.

I'm not sure I agree with those who say coaches will schedule weaker. Yes this change would help coaches with easier SOS get into the PIT (having to have at least a .500 record), but isn't the goal to get to the NT? Having a weak schedule will do you no favors in that respect.

Posted by colonels19 on 5/16/2013 8:34:00 PM (view original):FWIW, this seems like a bit of a big anomaly too...88th and didn't make the PIT...a lot of upsets in the CTs presumably.

I support non .500s making the PIT because that's how it's run in real life. I think it would be silly to essentially penalize a user for coaching/wanting to coach in a big conference, because if you're currently a Big-6 also-ran, you're going to get screwed by some schmuck like me who's going to schedule weak just to get some Ws. I think this would be another rash decision that isn't needed in HD...again what is needed, is a better ranking system. Yes the Projection Report is better than whatever convoluted, closeted system there was before, but there's still room for improvement within the format, and this very situation proves it. Transparency doesn't absolve the minor ills of the system. I used to support the Projection Report, but as a result of this situation, I question its validity.

just because you have your own ranking system doesn't mean HD needs a "better" one. I'm fine with the ranking system; i just don't think postseason bids should be entirely based on a ranking system.

colonels19, you are not looking (or understanding) the numbers. #74 did not make the PIT. #74! 10 spots out of the dance and they are sitting at home because teams THAT SCHEDULE WEAKER (in the Big 6 conferences) made the PIT with as few as 10 wins. You say that happens in real life? Please show me ONE instance of a PIT team in real life that made the tournament with 10 or 11 wins. Please. If you can state an instance, then I might have to reconsider how I feel. Quit giving the Big 6 another advantage ($ they should not have, but a mid-major should) besides the recruit generation (which favors them also).

You talk about scheduling cream-puffs. Look at the ACC Allen team schedules for next year. They are a joke, as they have been for many a season. Plus, when one of their members has the gall to schedule another Big-6 team, their conference mates climb all over them in the conference forum for "scheduling too tough".

In the past, NIT teams were selected in consultation with ESPN, the television home of the NIT [1]. The goal of the NIT was to sustain the MIBA financially. Therefore, schools selected to play in the NIT were often major conference teams with records near .500 that had large television fan bases and would likely have a respectable attendance for tournament games on their home court. The latter is one reason why New Mexico was invited virtually every year the Lobos had a winning season but failed to qualify for the NCAA tournament.[36] Seeding considerations and home court advantage included the number of fans willing to show up to each game. In an effort to maintain some quality, a rule saying that a team must have a .500 record to qualify for the NIT was imposed. This prevented ESPN from suggesting major conference teams that finished at or very near the bottom of their conference standings but would likely garner good fan interest.

The NCAA announced a revamped selection process starting with the 2006 tournament. The main highlights are:

Teams are no longer required to have .500 or greater records to receive bids. Even with this change, however, all teams receiving invitations for the NIT have had .500 or greater records.

Similar to the automatic bids the NCAA Tournament grants for all conference tournament champions, all teams that won regular-season conference championships but failed to earn NCAA tournament bids are guaranteed places in the NIT.

So, while a .500 record is no longer required (but, was required at one time), NO team has been in the tournament with a sub.500 record for quite some time, if ever.

Posted by colonels19 on 5/16/2013 8:34:00 PM (view original):FWIW, this seems like a bit of a big anomaly too...88th and didn't make the PIT...a lot of upsets in the CTs presumably.

I support non .500s making the PIT because that's how it's run in real life. I think it would be silly to essentially penalize a user for coaching/wanting to coach in a big conference, because if you're currently a Big-6 also-ran, you're going to get screwed by some schmuck like me who's going to schedule weak just to get some Ws. I think this would be another rash decision that isn't needed in HD...again what is needed, is a better ranking system. Yes the Projection Report is better than whatever convoluted, closeted system there was before, but there's still room for improvement within the format, and this very situation proves it. Transparency doesn't absolve the minor ills of the system. I used to support the Projection Report, but as a result of this situation, I question its validity.

just because you have your own ranking system doesn't mean HD needs a "better" one. I'm fine with the ranking system; i just don't think postseason bids should be entirely based on a ranking system.